BharatTaxGST

Universal Metal Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication, CGST Delhi West & Anr.

Original PDF →
W.P.(C)/5920/2026HC DelhiGSTCNR DLHC01018962202607 August 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN2 pages
For Petitioner: Mr Anurag Mishra and Mr Naveen Rohila, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Samiksha Godiyal SSC CBIC with Mr Tenzing NamgyalBhutia and Mr Ritiwik Narayanan, Advs

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010189622026 + W.P.(C) 5920/2026, CM APPL. 29070/2026 and CM APPL. 49560/2026 UNIVERSAL METAL TRADERS .....Petitioner Through: Mr Anurag Mishra and Mr Naveen Rohila, Advocates versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, ADJUDICATION, CGST DELHI WEST & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Samiksha Godiyal SSC CBIC with Mr Tenzing NamgyalBhutia and Mr Ritiwik Narayanan, Advs CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

O R D E R %

07.08.

2026

1.

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Order- in-Original dated 31.12.2025 primarily on the ground that no Show Cause Notice was served upon the Petitioner and that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded prior to the passing of the impugned order.

2.

In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, it has been stated that the Show Cause Notice was served upon the Petitioner through three modes, namely, Speed Post, e-mail, and by uploading the notice on the web portal.

3.

It is further stated that, while granting an opportunity of personal hearing, a hearing notice dated 09.10.2025 was also sent to the Petitioner through e-mail and Speed Post. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:51:48

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents further submits that the Order-in-Original was also dispatched to the Petitioner's registered address through Speed Post and e-mail and was duly received by the Petitioner. This assertion is, however, disputed by learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner.

5.

It is, thus, evident that the present petition involves disputed questions of fact, particularly with regard to the service of the Show Cause Notice, the hearing notice, and the Order-in-Original.

6.

The Petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority, which is competent to examine and adjudicate upon the aforesaid disputed questions of fact. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, it cannot be conclusively held that the Petitioner was denied an opportunity of hearing. The Petitioner is, accordingly, relegated to avail the statutory remedy of appeal.

7.

In the event the Petitioner files an appeal along with an application seeking exclusion of the period spent in prosecuting the present writ petition under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same on its own merits, in accordance with law, and in a holistic manner.

8.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. AUGUST 7, 2026/PT/rm This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:51:48

Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.